Study of Cognitive Style of Undergraduate Students in Relation to their Gender and Stream
Sajad Ahmad Mir*
ABSTRACT
The present study is descriptive in nature and survey research method has been used for the study. The research paper compares the cognitive style of undergraduate students of Kashmir Valley with respect to their gender and stream. A sample of 300 undergraduate students (150 Male and 150 Female) was taken from two different Govt. Degree Colleges of Kashmir (J&K) India by using random sampling technique. Praveen Kumar’s Cognitive Style Inventory (2001) was administered for data collection. For data analysis- mean, SD, t- test and one-way ANOVA were employed. The investigation came to the conclusion that Male and Female undergraduate students do not differ significantly on cognitive styles. Further, it was also reflected in the study that the main effect of stream on both dimensions- systematic and intuitive cognitive style was found to be insignificant for undergraduate students.
Keywords: Cognitive Style; Systematic Style; Intuitive Style; Undergraduate Students;
Kashmir Division Introduction
Globalization demands flexibility, with flexible people in continuous lifelong learning. The ability to produce outputs, i.e. collaboratively in global networks is more appreciated by the market than an academic degree fixed in space and time (Sundar & Satya, 2008). In India the educational options, policies, and ideals are hotly debated in view of globalization, predominance of capitalistic economy, the boom in the service sectors and revolution in communication technology.
The traditional ideals of ‘Sa Vidya Ya Vimuktaye’ which means education must liberate us have given way to education for survival and wealth creation. More than yesterday India today needs to re-examine her own educational ideals, options, methods and structures. The important concerns include safeguarding eternal values, ensuring literacy, free compulsory school education, meeting the goals of total quality management, meeting the challenges of globalization to ensure India’s rightful place in the community of nations and create a learning society for the century of knowledge.
* Research Scholar, School of Education, Central University of Kashmir, [email protected]
Cognition is an act or process of knowing. It is a collection of mental processes that includes awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgement. The study of cognitive processes has its roots in the Gestalt psychology of Wertheimer, Kohler, and Koffka and in the studies of cognitive development in children by Piaget during the 19th century.
Cognitive style is usually described as a personality dimension which influences attitudes, values, and social interaction. For example, how individuals process experience and knowledge, and how they organize and retain information, is a cognitive style. Some people need to visualize the task before starting. Some people approach learning and teaching sequentially or randomly. Some work quickly or deliberately. Some process information in wholes and others process information in parts. Some are wholists and some are analytics. Some are field dependent learners and some are field independent (Witkin, et al. 1977). There are verbalizers who are individuals that think in terms of words as opposed to imagers who think in terms of mental pictures (Cheema & Riding, 1991). Hence, we can say that there are different cognitive learning styles for each person.
Cognitive style is a hypothetical construct that has been developed to explain the process of mediation between stimuli and responses. As constructs, cognitive styles not only influence learning from interactions but also play an important role in the way learners function in the society psychologically and socially. It is an information transformation process whereby objective stimuli are interpreted into meaningful schema. The term refers to characteristic ways in which individuals conceptually organize the environment (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978). Cognitive styles are psychological dimensions that represent the consistencies in an individual’s manner of acquiring and processing information (Ausburn and Ausburn, 1978;
Curry, 1983; Kaufmann & Martinsen, 1999). It deals with the manner in which people prefer to make sense out of their world by collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting data (Messick, 1984).
Cognitive style is an aspect of overall personality and cognitive processes. It is a bridge between cognition or intelligence measures and personality measures (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997). Cognitive styles are constructs developed to describe perceptual traits of individuals, have their origins in studies of human cognition in the differential perspective (Lemes, 1998).
Characteristics of Cognitive Style
Kolb (1984) has given converger, diverger, assimilator and accommodator cognitive styles. Their characteristics are described as:
1) Converger: The convergent style depends mainly on the dominant learning capacities of active experimentation and abstract conceptualization. This style has great advantages in decision making, problem solving, traditional intelligence tests, and practical applications of theories. Knowledge is organized in a way of hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Therefore, persons with this style are superior in technical tasks and problems and inferior in
social and interpersonal matters.
2) Diverger: The divergent cognitive style has the opposite learning advantages over converger. This style depends mainly on concrete experience and reflective observation. It has great advantages in imaginative abilities and awareness of meaning and values. Therefore, persons with this style tend to organize concrete situations from different perspectives and to structure their relationships into a meaningful whole; they focus on adaptation by observation instead of by action; they are superior in generating alternative hypothesis and ideas, and tend to be imaginative people or feeling-oriented;
they tend to choose to specialize in liberal arts and humanities.
3) Assimilator: The assimilative style depends mainly on abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. This style has great advantages in inductive reasoning, creating theoretical models, and assimilating different observations into an integrative entity. Similar to converger, persons with this style tend to be more concerned about abstract concepts and ideas, and less concerned about people. However, persons having this style tend to focus more on the logical soundness and preciseness of the ideas, rather than their practical values; they tend to choose to work in research and planning units.
4) Accomodator: The accommodative style has the opposite learning advantages over assimilation. This style depends mainly on active experimentation and concrete experience. It has great advantages in doing things, implementing plans, and engaging in new tasks. Therefore, persons with this style focus on risk taking, opportunity seeking, and action. They tend to be superior in adapting themselves to changing immediate solutions in which the plan or theory does not fit the facts. They also tend to intuitively solve problems in a trial-and–error manner, depending mainly on other people for information rather than on their own thinking. Therefore, persons having this style tend to deal with people easily. They tend to specialize in action-oriented jobs, such as marketing and sales.
Dimensions of Cognitive Style
1) Systematic style: An individual identified as having a systematic style is one who rates high on the systematic scale and low on the intuitive scale.
The systematic style is associated with logical, rational behaviour that uses a well-defined step-by-step approach to thinking, learning, and overall plan for problem solving.
2) Intuitive style: An individual who rates low on the systematic scale and high on the intuitive scale is described as having an intuitive style. Someone, whose style is intuitive, uses an unpredictable ordering of analytical steps when solving a problem, relies on experience patterns, and explores and abandons alternatives quickly.
3) Integrated style: A person with an integrated style rates high on both scales and is able to change styles quickly and easily. Such style changes seem to be unconscious and take place in a matter of seconds. In fact, integrated people are often referred to as problem seekers because they consistently attempt to identify potential problems as well as opportunities in order to find better ways of doing things.
4) Undifferentiated style: An individual rating low on both the systematic and the intuitive scale is described as having undifferentiated cognitive behavior. Such a person appears not to distinguish or differentiate between the two style extremes; i.e.; systematic and intuitive and, therefore, appears not to display a style. In fact, in a problem-solving or learning situation, he or she may exhibit receptivity to instructions or guidelines from outside sources. Undifferentiated individuals tend to be withdrawn, passive, and reflective and often look to others for problem-solving strategies.
5) Split style: An individual rating in the middle range on both the systematic and the intuitive scale is considered to have a split style involving fairly equal (average) degrees of systematic and intuitive specialization. However, people with a split style do not possess an integrated behavioral response;
instead, they exhibit each separate dimension in completely different settings;
using only one style at a time based on the nature of their tasks or their work groups. In other words, they consciously respond to problem-solving and learning situations by selecting appropriate style.
Justification of the Study
Cognitive style is significantly associated with students’ academic achievement (Dwyer and Moore, 1995). It has also been examined in students showing high achievement in particular subject-matter areas, in students committed to .a givenprofession, and in persons already working within a profession (Arbuthnot
&.Gruenfal, 1969; Barrett & Thornton, 1967; Bieri, Bradburn & Galinsky, 1958;Frehner, 1971; Holtzman, Swartz & Thorpe, 1971; MacKinnon, 1962; Rosenfeld,1958; Rosett, Nackenson, Robbins & Sapirstein, 1966; Sieben, 1971; Stein, 1968). Numerous research studies have connected cognitive style to students’ choices or interests and performances with a given domain (Chung, 1966).
Teacher’s cognitive style influences his or her ways of teaching and students’
cognitive style influence their learning strategies and a match or mismatch in cognitive style between teacher and student will determine how well they go all along to achieve the objectives of subject matter (Witkin, 1972). Numerous strategies exist to assist improving the learning environment and interaction in the classroom for diverse students. One important strategy is to address the instructional implications for cognitive learning styles. So the study is hoped to provide some information for curriculum designers and classroom teachers in order to utilize relevant approaches to enhance meaningful and effective learning.
Hence cognitive style is an important aspect in one’s life and very less research has been conducted so far in this area especially in the Valley of Kashmir. Therefore, to fill this vacuum the present investigator has found it feasible to work on the un-threshed Kashmir Valley (India). Moreover the study is helpful for undergraduate students in particular, to know how they can adjust themselves in today’s competitive society of ours. It is thought that the study findings will help the educational planners, thinkers, administrators as well as teachers in designing their teaching styles which would help in maximizing students’ learning.
Statement of the Problem
The problem chosen for the study is stated as:
“Cognitive Style of Undergraduate Students in Relation to their Gender and Stream”
Objectives of the Study
1. To study the difference in systematic cognitive style of male and female undergraduate students.
2. To study the difference in intuitive cognitive style of male and female undergraduate students.
3. To study the difference in systematic cognitive style of science, arts and commerce undergraduate students.
4. To study the difference in intuitive cognitive style of science, arts and commerce undergraduate students.
Null Hypotheses
1. Male and female undergraduate students do not differ significantly in relation to their systematic cognitive styles.
2. Male and female undergraduate students do not differ significantly in relation to their intuitive cognitive styles.
3. There is no significant difference in systematic cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students.
4. There is no significant difference in intuitive cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students.
Operational Definition of Terms
Cognitive style: An individual’s cognitive style can be systematic style or intuitive style. In the present investigation, cognitive style refers to scores obtained by respondents on Praveen Kumar’s Cognitive Style Inventory.
Undergraduate Students: Undergraduate students are students who are enrolled and pursuing undergraduate courses through regular mode in Govt. Degree Colleges of Kashmir Valley.
Procedure Sample
A sample of 300 students pursuing undergraduate education in different courses was selected randomly from two different Govt. Degree Colleges of Kashmir division (Govt. Degree College Tral, Pulwama & Govt. Degree College Anantnag).
From each college 150 students having different streams (Arts, Science & Commerce) were selected randomly among them half of the selected sample was comprised of female undergraduate students and half as the male undergraduate students.
The breakup is given below:
Table showing the sample for the study
Category Male Female Total
Arts Students 50 50 100
Science Students 50 50 100
Commerce Students 50 50 100
Total 150 150 300
Tool
For the measurement of cognitive style, Praveen Kumar’s Cognitive Style Inventory (2001) was administered. The test has been standardized over male and female undergraduate and post-graduate students. There is no time limit for completing the scale. There is no right or wrong responses. It is a self report research tool which gives an estimate of 40 items which measures Systematic Style and Intuitive Style. It consists of 20 items each on a five point likert format. Five responses are; strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree, Strongly Agree.
To avoid monotony on the part of respondents five response categories in words and their corresponding number from 1 to 5 have been given only on the top.
For each statement, the respondent has to decide which number corresponds to his/her level of agreement with the statement and write that number in the blank space provided on the left of each statement. The responses are scored by adding all the response numbers as indicated the left of each item which yield a Systematic score and an Intuitive score. These scores are then interpreted, which helps to identify the specific cognitive style to which they might belong. The weightage point or sore for an item is shown in below table.
Weightage of Response for Cognitive Style items Response
Category Strongly Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree
S-Category 1 2 3 4 5
I-Category 5 4 3 2 1
Source: Based on Praveen’s CSI
Analysis of the Data
For the analysis of collected but relevant data, appropriate statistical techniques viz; mean, standard deviation, t-test and ANOVA-one way were employed.
Section 1: Pertaining to the Difference in Cognitive Style of Male and Female Undergraduate Students
The presentation of this section has been done under the following sub-parts:
Section 1.1 Result pertaining to the difference in systematic cognitive style of male and female undergraduate students.
Section 1.2 Result pertaining to the difference in intuitive cognitive style of male and female undergraduate students.
Section 1.1
To find out the difference in systematic cognitive style of male and female undergraduate students, t-test was applied and the result is presented in table no. 1.
Systematic Cognitive Style N M S. D. Df SEd t-value
150 73.79 7.57 298 0.79 0.81 150 74.44 6.15
Table value at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance is 1.97 and 2.59
The table no. 1 shows that calculated t-value is 0.81 which is found insignificant at both the levels. So it may be interpreted that there is no significant difference in systematic cognitive style among male and female undergraduate students.
Thus, Ho is accepted.
The difference in mean scores between male and female undergraduate students on systematic cognitive style has been shown in the graph no. 1.
Graph 1: Mean and SD between Male and Female in SCS Section 1.2
To find out the difference in intuitive cognitive style among male and female undergraduate students, t-test was applied and the result is presented in table no. 2
Intuitive Cognitive Style N M S. D. Df SEd t-value
150 63.47 6.51 298 0.76 1.52 150 64.64 6.73
Table value at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance is 1.97 and 2.59
The table no. 2 depicts that calculated t-value is 1.52 which is found insignificant at both the levels. So it may be interpreted that there is no significant difference in intuitive cognitive style among male and female undergraduate students. Thus, Ho is accepted.
The difference in mean scores between male and female undergraduate students on intuitive cognitive style has been shown in the graph no. 2.
Graph 2: Mean and SD between male and female in ICS
Section 2: Pertaining to the Difference in Cognitive Style of Arts, Science and Commerce Undergraduate Students.
The presentation of this section has been done under the following sub-headings:
Section 2.1: Result pertaining to the difference in systematic cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students.
Section 2.2: Result pertaining to difference in intuitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students.
Section 2.1
To find out the difference in systematic cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students, ANOVA (one-way) was applied and the result is presented in table no. 3.
Systematic Cognitive Style Source of Variation SS Df MS F – ratio
Between Groups 131.68 2 65.84 1.38 Within Groups 14089.23 297 47.43
Total 14220.91 299
Table value at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance is 3.03 and 4.68
The table no. 3 depicts that the main effect of stream is not significant on systematic cognitive style at both levels. It means that there is no significant difference in mean score of systematic cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students. Thus, Ho is accepted.
Section 2.2
To find out the difference in intuitive cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students, ANOVA (one-way) was applied and the result is presented in table no. 4.
Intuitive Style Source of Variation SS Df MS F – ratio
Between Groups 21.44 2 10.72
0.24 Within Groups 13164.59 297 44.32
Total 14220.91 299
Table value at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance is 3.03 & 4.68 respectively.
The table no. 4 shows that the main effect of stream on intuitive cognitive style is insignificant at both levels. It means that there is no significant difference in mean score of intuitive cognitive style of arts, science and commerce undergraduate students. Thus, Ho is accepted.
Conclusion
The present study through the different stages of investigation reached to the following conclusions:
• Group difference between male and female undergraduate students on systematic cognitive style as well as on intuitive cognitive style is found to be insignificant. Witkin (1972) found a slight difference among the sexes on the mean score of cognitive style, but Goldstein & Blackman1 (1978) do not found any such difference of cognitive style with respect to gender.
• The main effect of stream on systematic and intuitive cognitive style is insignificant for undergraduate students. Kumar (1984); Dani (1984) found the significant effect of stream on cognitive style. Contrary to it, and Cakan (2000) does not found any such difference in cognitive learning ability of students but revealed that students may respond differently to the content being presented as well as the learning environment.
Testing of Hypotheses
All the four hypotheses stated in the first part of this research study stated ‘no significant difference’ between the sample groups. After analysing and interpreting the collected data, no significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to their gender and stream. Thus, our entire hypotheses were accepted.
References
1. Arbuthnot, J., & Gruenfeld, L. (1969). Field independence and educational vocational interests. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (33), p 631.
2. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive Styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communications and Technology Journal (26), p 337-354.
3. Barrett, G. V., & Thornton, C. L. (1967). Cognitive style differences between engineers and college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, (25), 789-793.
4. Bieri, J., Bradburn, W. M., & Galinsky, M. D. (1958). Sex differences in perceptual behavior.
Journal of Personality, (26), 1-12.
5. Cakan, M. (2000). Interaction between cognitive styles and assessment approaches:
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Louisiana State University, USA Baton Rouge.
6. Cheema, I., & Riding, R. (1991). Cognitive Styles: An overview and integration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 193 – 216.
7. Chung, W. S. (1966). Relationships among measures of cognitive style, vocational preferences, and vocational identification: Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers. Ann Arboz, Michigan: University Microfilms, No. 67-3611.
8. Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory & constructs: Retrieved from ERIC Database, 235-185.
9. Dani, D. N. (1984). Scientific attitude and cognitive style of higher secondary students, Ph. D. thesis.
10. Kumar. P. (1984). Cognitive Style of the Post-Graduate Students in Different Streams of University education: Ph. D Thesis, DHSGW.
11. Lemes, S. S. (1998). Influence of Cognitive-Dependent & Independent Style on Academic Achievement: Ph. D Thesis, Institute of Psychology, University of Sao Paulo.
12. MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The personality correlates of creativity: A study of American architects. In G. S. Nielsen (Ed.), Personality research: Proceedings of the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Pp. 11-39.
13. Messick, S. (1984). The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and promise in educational practice: Journal of Educational Psychology, V. (19), p.59-74.
14. Obama, B. (2011). India- the Youngest Population: The White House Office of the Press Secretary.
15. Rosenfeld, I. J. (1958). Mathematical ability as a function of perceptual field-dependency and certain personality variables: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
16. Rosett, H. L., Nackenson, B. L., Robbins, H., & Sapirstein, M. R. (1966). Personality and cognitive characteristics of engineering students: Implications for the occupational psychiatrist. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 1147-1152.
17. Sieben, G. A. (1971). Cognitive style and children’s performance on measures of elementary science competencies: Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia.
18. Stein, F. (1968). Consistency of cognitive, interest, and personality variables with academic mastery: A study of field-dependence-independence, verbal comprehension, self perception, and vocational interest in relation to academic performance among male juniors attending an urban university. Doctoral dissertation, New York University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, No. 68-11, 809.
19. Sundar & Satya. (2008). Cited in University News (2012). Distance Education in the age of Globalization: An overwhelming desire towards blended learning, 50(20), 3-5.
20. Witkin, H. A. (1972). The Role of Cognitive Style in Academic Performance and in Teacher-Student Relations.Paper presented at a Symposium Sponsored by the Graduate Record Examination Board, Montreal, Canada, November 8-10, 1972.
21. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications: Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1- 64.
